Book sales, ratings for Hillary tour less than impressive

posted at 8:01 am on June 19, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Last night, Allahpundit disagreed with the idea that Hillary Clinton was imploding after a ten-day gaffe-fest on topics from her own wealth to the relative brutality of American politics. Perhaps it’s more accurate to ask whether her public persona is simply deflating. If the book and the media tour was a trial balloon for a presidential run, then the trial balloon is at least seriously sagging.

Take the book sales of Hard Choices. On Monday, we had some preliminary and indirect numbers, but last night The Daily Beast’s Jason Pinter got the hard data from Nielsen Bookscan, which represents 70-80% of all retail hard-copy book sales in the US, according to Pinter. Despite the $14 million advance and a media tour that almost no author gets, Hard Choices came in second place to the eighth in a series of fiction novels:

Based on its first week Bookscan numbers, the commercial reception for Hard Choices has been decidedly underwhelming: in its first week it sold just 85,721 print copies, compared to the 500k+ of Living History, and fewer than the week’s bestselling fiction title, Written In My Heart’s Own Blood, the latest ‘Outlander’ novel from Diana Gabaldon, which sold 88,751 copies (with no town hall).

Other political memoirs of this level over the past decade sold more than a million copies, but as Pinter points out, those were also first memoirs (including Hillary’s Living History). There is plenty of data that shows that second books do significantly worse than debuts. On the other hand, the anticipation for this release was so high that Simon & Schuster paid that ridiculous $14 million bonus to publish it, and every major network turned their Hillary interview into rock-star events. And the book still couldn’t outsell Gabaldon’s eighth book in its first week.

Speaking of rock-star events, how did the ratings look for these highly-promoted, much-ballyhooed interviews with Hillary? Her first interview on ABC with Diane Sawyer drew 6.5 million and won the Monday time slot, even though Variety reports that “it didn’t do much demo-wise.” It came in 12th for the week, with three NBA games, two NCIS episodes, 60 Minutes, Game of Thrones, and The Blue Bloods and Night Shift all landing ahead of Hillary’s interview. (It did beat the Dateline retrospective on OJ Simpson by three slots, however.)

Beginning with CNN, the 5 p.m. hour averaged 115K viewers in the 25-54 demo and 521K total viewers. That put it barely ahead of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, which had 105K in the demo and 506K total viewers. Meanwhile, Fox’s The Five led the time slot with 336K in the demo and 1.876M total viewers.

When CNN re-aired the interview at 9 p.m. its number increased slightly to 146K in the demo and593K in the demo. While those were the best ratings CNN had all night, it still put them in third place for the hour behind Fox’s The Kelly File (377K in the demo, 2.126M total) and MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (168K in the demo, 918K total).

Relatively speaking, things did not look all that much better for Fox. That network split its Clinton interview between the last 15 minutes of Special Report with Bret Baier at 6 p.m. and the first 15 minutes of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren at 7 p.m. The first hour averaged 271K in the demo and 1.779M total viewers, which represented a nearly 20% drop in the demo compared to The Five an hour earlier.

When Greta Van Susteren‘s 7 p.m. show began mid-interview, the network clocked another drop, this time to 264K in the demo and 1.751M total viewers. When The O’Reilly Factor began at 8 p.m., Fox’s numbers reliably jumped back up to 413K in the demo and 2.415M total viewers.

Mediaite’s Matt Wilstein reaches the obvious conclusion:

Unfortunately for Clinton, this could be an indication that Hillary-fatigue has set in even among those Americans who spend their afternoons watching cable news. While Clinton’s first major interview withDiane Sawyer last week drew 6.1 million viewers on network TV, cable news couldn’t come close.

As trial balloons go, this one barely got off the ground. Maybe that should have Democrats — and the Clintons — making other plans for 2016.

I ain’t holding my breath. First, because the Clintons(especially Hillary) are power hungry and egomaniacs. And second, who else do the Dems have? There’s no other female or minority candidate they can put up(no, Pocahontas Warren ain’t happening), and their white dudes all hail from deep blue states and are unappealing and unelectable.

Say what you will about the GOP, but they actually do have a pretty deep bench for 2016. The key of course will be preventing the establishment from shoving the likes of Jeb or CRISTie down our throats.

The woman has been around for long enough that most people over the age of 25 have made up their minds about her. Short of developing cold fusion or shooting someone, Hillary isn’t going to move the needles much. The chances of an HRC presidency depend almost soley on MSM cheerleading and the MSM has yet to commit to the task.

Say what you will about the GOP, but they actually do have a pretty deep bench for 2016. The key of course will be preventing the establishment from shoving the likes of Jeb or CRISTie down our throats.

Doughboy on June 19, 2014 at 8:08 AM

2016 is an opportunity to elect a conservative who will at least BEGIN to undo the generation’s worth of DAMAGE that Obama has done.

But the GOP being the GOP will nominate another “electable” liberal moderate who will gaffe at 90 words a minute and lose to whatever nonentity Soros has nominated.

Hillary has always been uninspiring. She is a bland character of little accomplishment and no real stand out talent. Her speeches are trite, dull, delivered poorly and rarely contain any idea that has not been poll tested.

Hillary’s biggest claim? Former First Lady, carpetbagger, short-term senator and a stint as Secretary of State that I am betting as of late, she’d rather forget.

Is this the “experience” which indicates to voters she can run our country? Run it where? Further into the ground? What about our economy? Does counting $12 million dollars in income as “broke” ultimately disqualify her?

Point out the obvious and either the howling screams of misogynist or the whispers of “extremist” waft through the air. Meanwhile if she was a man, this variety show would have been cancelled a long time ago.

This country needs a leader, not another creation of someone’s imagination and the dishonest media with a prolonged book tour (apparently of little interest) trying to convince us just how wonderful they are.

The woman has been around for long enough that most people over the age of 25 have made up their minds about her. Short of developing cold fusion or shooting someone, Hillary isn’t going to move the needles much. The chances of an HRC presidency depend almost soley on MSM cheerleading and the MSM has yet to commit to the task.

ROCnPhilly on June 19, 2014 at 8:18 AM

At this point I don’t think the media can or WILL spin for her. Hilldabeast has a very nasty reputation with the media, she’s never been friendly with them (or anyone else for that matter). Hillary thinks she’s entitled.

Why else were they so quick to dump her in the gutter and embrace Obama in 2008? Watch for the same thing to happen this year. Some unknown will win the nomination in 2016.

2016 is an opportunity to elect a conservative who will at least BEGIN to undo the generation’s worth of DAMAGE that Obama has done.

But the GOP being the GOP will nominate another “electable” liberal moderate who will gaffe at 90 words a minute and lose to whatever nonentity Soros has nominated.

ConstantineXI on June 19, 2014 at 8:19 AM

I hope not. I’m done with the GOP if they put up a loser candidate that the base doesn’t want for the 3rd consecutive election. At least the last time the Dems lost the White House 3 straight times it was due to Carter’s disastrous record followed by Reagan’s successful one.

I would be careful asking who the dems have in the wings. O dipsh!t came out of nowhere if I remember correctly. Clinton may be a distraction while they prep someone else, like maybe the Castro brothers?

And it looks a lot like the NYTs characterization of the content is a puffed up fantasy and Simon and Shusters claim it tipped 100K the first week is a bare faced lie. It didn’t make 100K considering all formats.

I would be careful asking who the dems have in the wings. O dipsh!t came out of nowhere if I remember correctly. Clinton may be a distraction while they prep someone else, like maybe the Castro brothers?

JAGonzo on June 19, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Something like that may be the new formula for them.

Run someone who is unknown with no record (that the media will report on anyway), especially a “good looking” minority that can be the “first” something, have them read “hopeandchange” from a teleprompter and plant fainters in the audience.

I heard one of the commentators on some talk show (maybe The Five?), say that she is answering all these questions now so she can get her stint as SOS off the table now. If that’s the case, wtf is she going to run on?

We have seen similar tactics from the GOP. The run some candidate that can distract enough voters to get their guy through. I know they did it here in Texas with Cornyn’s race. They did it in Virginia with Cuccinelli as well.

Unfortunately for Clinton, this could be an indication that Hillary-fatigue has set in even among those Americans who spend their afternoons watching cable news.

What it means is a Hillary 2016 campaign would more resemble Obama’s 2012 campaign than his 2008 campaign, in that 2012 was about both building Obama up but more about depressive turnout for Mitt Romney via negative advertising and big media spin. In ’08, when Obama was a blank slate, the spin was more declaring the blank slate that Obama was to most voters as something of a demigod, and convincing voters electing him would end racism and turn the would into Shanga-La.

So for 2016 the Democrats can still play their “War on Women” card and tar whoever the GOP nominates as a misogynist, but they’re not going to be able to push the idea that electing the first woman president will create Earthly nirvana or that Hillary is the daughter of gaia (despite that New York Times cover from a couple of months ago), because she’s not the blank slate Obama was in 2008 — even low-info voters have had Hillary in their faces for the past 22 years.

The main X-factor here is the left side of the Democratic party doesn’t want to run their campaign with Hillary — they want to run it with Liz Warren, who they think they can sell to voters as a progressive secular goddess. So Hillary’s crash-and-burn book tour is as much good news to them as it is to Republicans.

At this point I don’t think the media can or WILL spin for her. Hilldabeast has a very nasty reputation with the media, she’s never been friendly with them (or anyone else for that matter). Hillary thinks she’s entitled.

Why else were they so quick to dump her in the gutter and embrace Obama in 2008? Watch for the same thing to happen this year. Some unknown will win the nomination in 2016.

ConstantineXI on June 19, 2014 at 8:24 AM

I think the MSM jury is still out. I believe they’d rather sell a shiny new object like an Obama than a high mileage baggage-laden clunker like Clinton, but they’ll do it if they must.

Doughboy – I haven’t been successful finding numbers on book #2. Darned media is too busy cheering that it wasn’t the outstanding seller that the first achieved. Best I can do is that it was second on the NYT’s bestseller list while G.W. Bush’s book was first.

All this means nothing. Obama/Hillary voters don’t care about anything but identity politics, free phones, legitimizing their vices or some combination of these. The vast majority are simplistic dolts who probably have no idea what a Sec of State does (apart from attend conferences on global warming) nor could they find Libya on a map (even with a hint that it’s south of Italy… which they also couldn’t find on a map).

The dem candidate starts at a solid 45% of dependents and goes for the necessary 6% of the rest by slandering the GOP candidate and scaring just enough voters to win. That’s Hillary’s plan for 2016. This book tour doesn’t faze her. She has 14 million reasons to be pleased.

Like it or not, likeability is the most important attribute for the modern-day presidential candidate. Can you name the last time the less-likeable candidate won? Obama is an awful president, but so many people still absolutely love the guy (including, importantly, the press). People like his so much that they overlook his contradictions, incompetency, and policies.

Based on this alone, Hillary will be vulnerable against any Republican candidate.

Like it or not, likeability is the most important attribute for the modern-day presidential candidate. Can you name the last time the less-likeable candidate won? Obama is an awful president, but so many people still absolutely love the guy (including, importantly, the press). People like his so much that they overlook his contradictions, incompetency, and policies.

Based on this alone, Hillary will be vulnerable against any Republican candidate.

Naked Emperor on June 19, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Obama’s “likable” facade was long gone by 2012, yet he got re-elected.

Obama’s “likable” facade was long gone by 2012, yet he got re-elected.

ConstantineXI on June 19, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Obama’s 2012 re-election was in large part about voters being in love with themselves, as far as feeling tolerant and forward-thinking in first electing the first African-American president in 2008, and then showing he didn’t fail by re-electing him in ’12. Those voters really don’t give a damn if Obama does anything, they just want him there as a Trophy President, which is why when Team Obama thought they’re all come out in droves four months after the election to support their attack on the Republicans’ sequestration, all they got were crickets.

So Hillary doesn’t have the likability factor in 2016 (nor would Liz Warren), but the Trophy President factor’s still in play, in making those voters think they’re just super, super tolerant and enlightened humans because they put the first woman in the White House, even if she’s unlikeable and has no major accomplishments in over a quarter-century of public life.

Doughboy – I haven’t been successful finding numbers on book #2. Darned media is too busy cheering that it wasn’t the outstanding seller that the first achieved. Best I can do is that it was second on the NYT’s bestseller list while G.W. Bush’s book was first.

debg on June 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM

All I could find was for the year,

797,955 for America by Heart; a year earlier she topped the charts with sales of more than 2,670,000 for Going Rogue

“The president’s lead over Romney on “likability” was 22 points in polls conducted the week ending with October 14 – down from 28 before the debate – while his advantage on the question, “which candidate would be more fun to meet in person?” fell from 28 to a still-commanding 24 points.”

Everyone knows what Hillary is about, no need to buy a book or listen to her speak. She will get the Democratic vote even if some have to hold their noses.I think what is hurting her the most is her lack of enthusiasm. She’s not very good at faking it.

Jason Mattera caught up with Hillary Clinton at one of the DC stops on her book tour this week, and asked the former Secretary of State if she would mind signing a copy of Hard Choices… but with a twist. “If you could make it out to Christopher Stevens,” Mattera queried. “I think you knew him.”
Christopher Stevens, of course, was the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was murdered along with three other Americans on Clinton’s watch, when Jihadists attacked two U.S. outposts in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Hillary, surprised by the request, replied, “Yeah, I’m not gonna make it out to Chris Stevens.” Mattera followed-up with, “What difference does it make?” a reference to Clinton’s infamous 2013 Senate testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee.
Mattera, the publisher of Daily Surge, also noted during their exchange that Hillary’s security detail appears to be larger than what Ambassador Stevens was provided in Benghazi. Clinton’s entourage filled up a town car, two SUVs, and consisted of security personnel from the building she had just exited.
Recently, Diane Sawyer pressed Hillary on the “systemic” security failures at the American consulate in Libya, where both Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith died. Clinton gave a rather Clintonian answer: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.

Everyone knows what Hillary is about, no need to buy a book or listen to her speak. She will get the Democratic vote even if some have to hold their noses.I think what is hurting her the most is her lack of enthusiasm. She’s not very good at faking it.

The last line quoted above says it all. The mindless minions who are liberals might not buy her book and might not care to watch her interviews, but they will certainly vote for her anyway regardless of her qualifications because, after all, she has lady parts and they would like to vote for her to be part of making history – once again. And “feeling good” about simple ideas is all that really matters to a lib.

Time to start calling these “book deals” for politicians what they are: SCAMS to bypass contribution limits.

ConstantineXI on June 19, 2014 at 8:05 AM

I agree with you ConstantineXI just take a look at Sarah Palin book “Going Rogue” sold 300,000 it’s first day in stores, with an advance of $1.25 million. Look at also Ted Cruz a $1.5 million advance and I will wager you the book out sells Hillary’s.